Under or on? As a group or an individual?

This seems like an asinine thread, but it has a lot of arguments on both sides.

Suppose someone says you have dust on your fingers. Does the person mean that there is brick dust under your fingers or literally on your fingers? Can the two be switched out with each other or as a generalization for each other?

Another similar instance: let's say "The Razors", a school group or clique, bullied on a certain person named "John". If one of the bullies from The Razors pushes John around, does that mean that the Razors, as a whole, pushed John around?

In both of these situations, little arguments like these determined the fate of the defendant/suspect. What do you think about each of the scenarios?

 

I have no idea about the under or on part.

And in todays society thats pretty messed up in terms of legal flaws in many states the ones who encouraged or told him to would be guilty also. But in a real situation it was the 'One" bully who actually pushed the kid and it was his choice, he wasnt forced to do. And for the encouragers being there maybe he should have picked better freinds and never been in that situation.

 

I think as long as people understand what you're saying, it shouldn't matter.

 

Well yeah obviously, but faggots in the courtroom will take any and every interpretation possible and use it to convict or free someone.


dust is literally on your fingers

No, the one cunt who pushed him should get charged ( with pushing around not bullying ), not the group as a whole.